Re: [PATCH 04/23] vfs: Introduce infrastructure for revoking a file

[Nick Piggin]

On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 01:52:46PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, 2 Jun 2009, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >>
> >> Why is it called hotplug? Does it have anything to do with hardware?
> >> Because every concurrently changed software data structure in the
> >> kernel can be "hot"-modified, right?
> >> 
> >> Wouldn't file_revoke_lock be more appropriate?
> >
> > I agree, "hotplug" just sounds crazy. It's "open" and "revoke", not 
> > "plug" and "unplug".
> 
> I guess this shows my bias in triggering this code path from pci
> hotunplug.  Instead of with some system call.
> 
> I'm not married to the name.  I wanted file_lock but that is already
> used, and I did call the method revoke.

Definitely it is not going to be called hotplug in the generic
vfs layer :)

 
> The only place where hotplug gives a useful hint is that it makes it
> clear we really are disconnecting the file descriptor from what lies
> below it.

Isn't that hotUNplug?

But anyway hot plug/unplug is a purely hardware concept. Revoke
for "unplug", please, including naming of patches, changelogs,
and locks etc.


>  We can't do some weird thing like keep the underlying object.
> Because the underlying object is gone.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/